Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: USMCA strengthens IP protection

As a party to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Canada has agreed to adopt important new protections for biologic and other pharmaceutical innovation, as well as other changes to strengthen its patent system and harmonise certain IP laws with its trading partners.

The USMCA will come into force after it has been signed and ratified by the member states. Signature is anticipated before the end of 2018, but dates for its ratification and the expiry of its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have yet to be determined.

Data protection

Canada has long been regarded as a jurisdiction with relatively weak protection for pharmaceutical and biologic innovation. In this context, perhaps the most significant change introduced by the USMCA is an additional two years of data protection for new biologics. Data protection is a feature of the Food and Drug Regulations and provides market exclusivity for innovative drugs, independent of any protection that may exist through the patent system.

Canada currently provides data protection for all innovative drugs, including biologics, for a period of eight years from the day they are first approved. Although 10 years is an improvement, it still falls short of the 12 years of equivalent protection for biologics in the United States. Two additional years will nonetheless provide increased opportunities to offset the high cost and risk associated with the development, regulatory approval, and commercialisation of biologics.

While details are scarce regarding Canada's plans to implement its new data protection commitments, a five-year transition period to complete implementation provides ample time for policy development.

Patent term restoration (PTR)

The USMCA also requires Canada to adopt a system that reduces the risk of patent term erosion during prosecution. Once implemented, patentees will be able to access PTR by applying for additional protection when they have experienced "unreasonable delays" in issuance of a patent.

The USMCA contains two non-limiting examples of what constitutes unreasonable delay: (1) more than five years elapsing from the filing date in Canada; or (2) more than three years elapsing after a request for examination. The USMCA also avoids rewarding patentees for delays of their own making: in determining the duration of a delay, periods of time may be excluded, e.g. if they are attributable to the applicant.

In addition to PTR, the USMCA also includes separate provisions regarding patent term extension specific to the pharmaceutical industry. It appears Canada's commitments under these provisions are already satisfied by the introduction of Certificates of Supplementary Protection (CSPs) in 2017 pursuant to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union.

While CSPs are already available, Canada is not required to implement its new PTR commitments until four and a half years after the USMCA comes into force. However, PTR applies to all patent applications filed after the USMCA's date of entry into force, or the date two years after the signing of the USMCA – whichever is later.

Other IP changes in the USMCA

The USMCA also includes updates to Canada's IP commitments in other areas previously covered by the NAFTA, such as copyright and trade marks. Among them, the banner change is a 20-year extension to copyright protection, for a total of 70 years after the death of the author. Canada has two and a half years to implement this change from the date the USMCA comes into force.

cg

Christopher

A Guerreiro


Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLPSuite 3800, Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, 200 Bay Street, PO Box 84Toronto  Ontario  M5J 2Z4CanadaTel: +1 416 216 4000www.nortonrosefulbright.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A Foss Patents blog post revealed that Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his judgment in Optis v Apple on May 10
Witnesses during a committee hearing criticised proposals to increase some fees by as much as 400%
Sources say they are likely to hire external counsel that can create a lasting first impression but will likely turn their backs on lawyers who have nothing new to offer
Varuni Paranavitane, of counsel at Finnegan, examines recent decisions by US and UK courts to demonstrate the proof of infringement that was required
The Federal Circuit will also narrow its investigation into Judge Newman to focus on whether her failure to cooperate constitutes misconduct
The management board will send three names to the Council of the EU for a final decision
Sources say a decision by the IP High Court will make it easier for rights owners to fight infringement
Seán Kelly asked the European Commission how it intends to ensure the EUIPO executive director vote, due tomorrow, will be fair and transparent
Counsel from BMW and Finnegan explain how they got an NPE to sign a covenant agreeing not to sue the automaker ever again
The blue checkmark could be a good tool, but it’s unclear how widespread its adoption will be, say in-house sources